Re: Spider Monkey MPL question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Spider Monkey MPL question

Benjamin Smedberg
On 8/31/10 1:40 PM, Farhan wrote:
> Hi,
> We have downloaded the source code for spider monkey from mozilla and
> build the binary using the make file. What would we exactly need to do
> to satisfy the licensing requirements. We saw the following in the faq
> section

I am not a lawyer. Everything you read below is my own opinion or
interpretation.

This is really a question for your lawyer, if you don't understand or have
any concerns at all about the requirements. You should really read and
understand the requirements of the MPL, not just the FAQ.

> In the first case would we be just pointing the users to mozilla
> website where we downloaded the code from?

The specific language in the MPL paragraph 3.2 is:

Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made
available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the
same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic
Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version
available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must
remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially
became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of
that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You
are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available
even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.

The best way to satisfy this legal requirement is to host a copy of the
tarball on your own website.

> In the second case what do we mean by the copy of MPL here would it be
> ok to put the url which points to the MPL i.e http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/.

 From the MPL paragraph 3.6:

You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the requirements
of Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 have been met for that Covered Code,
and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the
Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a
description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of Section
3.2. The notice must be conspicuously included in any notice in an
Executable version, related documentation or collateral in which You
describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered Code. You may distribute
the Executable version of Covered Code or ownership rights under a license
of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License,
provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that
the license for the Executable version does not attempt to limit or alter
the recipient's rights in the Source Code version from the rights set forth
in this License. If You distribute the Executable version under a different
license You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from
this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or any
Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every
Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such
Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.

I don't see any requirement that you have to post the text of the MPL in
your legal notices, but I could be wrong about that.

In any case, please follow up to mozilla.legal instead of
mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine.

--BDS
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal